In comments on an earlier blog post, the commenter “Dan” pointed to an old USA Today article from 2001 that I had not seen but which sheds new light on Scott Wolter’s geological acumen. The story concerns the AVM Runestone (or Rune Stone), which I knew was a hoax, but whose full story I wasn’t aware of. I missed the USA Today piece in my research because it doesn’t appear in the version of Lexis-Nexis I have access to, nor does any other mention of the incident. Scott Wolter has removed references to the incident from his website.

The prelude to the incident is rather interesting. In 1995, Bob Berg, a Minnesota man who believes in Norse contact with medieval Minnesota, reported to his local Viking research group that he had found a one-ton stone bearing the runes AVM while surveying near the place where the Kensington Rune Stone, the nineteenth century hoax that many fringe writers believe is a genuine Norse artifact from an expedition from Vinland in 1362, was found in 1898. The AVM inscription resembled the one on the Kensington Rune Stone. After a closer inspection, Berg and his colleagues concluded that the so-called AVM stone was a fake. “I’ve considered it a fake for seven years,” Berg told Minnesota Public Radio in 2001. In the spring of 2001, stone carver Janey Westin and geologist Robert G. Johnson, her father, rediscovered the AVM boulder near Kensington, Minnesota. It became known as the AVM Runestone after Westin and Johnson became convinced that the stone was authentic and told their story in the local newspaper, which presented their view of the stone’s medieval date. The pair did not allow Berg to view the stone and seemed to ignore evidence that the inscription was not authentically medieval, particularly geological evidence that the rock was underwater in 1363.

Two weeks later Scott Wolter and the Kensington Runestone Scientific Testing Team traveled to the site to investigate. Wolter cleared the boulder of lichens and discovered more inscriptions, including a line of runes and a date on the stone, which read 1363, a year after the date carved on the Kensington Rune Stone. The stone was removed to Wolter’s lab for photography and weathering analysis, but Wolter made no comments between May and November 2001 to indicate that the stone was anything but authentic. Wolter and the the AVM Special Committee of the Kensington Runestone Scientific Testing Team announced the discovery of the AVM Rune Stone at a press conference and declared it important “new evidence” for the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone. According to published accounts, the team suggested that the stone was likely a Norse grave marker, but the Fall 2001 edition of The American Edge, Scott Wolter’s then-newsletter, where this claim was said to have appeared, has been removed from his company’s website, along with his other older newsletters. The Runestone Museum, which carried an announcement on its webpage, also scrubbed mention of the claims from its pages. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine preserved a copy of the August 13, 2001 text, which was attributed to the joint authorship of the “AVM Special Committee,” whose members included Wolter, Johnson and Westin, as well as Richard Nielsen:

A runestone that is believed to have been inscribed by Norse explorers or traders in the 14th century was found on May 13, 2001 near Kensington, in Douglas County, Minnesota. This newly discovered stone is in addition to the Kensington Runestone, found in 1898 by farmer Olof Ohman and his son when grubbing out trees.

At this point, Wolter had been studying the inscription for almost three months. In October 2001 two professors, Kari Ellen Gade and Jana Schulman, confessed by affidavit to carving the stone in 1985 while graduate students in Minnesota. According to Kensington Rune Stone researcher Barry Hanson and other published accounts, the women and several classmates had taken a class on the Kensington Rune Stone hoax and wanted to create one of their own to see how easily it could be done. Wolter accepted their confession and announced it on behalf of the AVM Special Committee on November 5. He told Archaeology magazine that he was troubled by some nagging doubts about the stone’s authenticity in the weeks before the pair confessed. He did not explain why it took him nearly six months to come to this determination, nor why his geological analysis failed to conclusively determine that the stone was a fake before the hoaxers confessed. Gade herself expressed shock that anyone would take the carving seriously since it was “clearly a fake.”

Wolter lists the AVM Rune Stone as a hoax on his 2010 list of past projects. What is interesting is the way that the documents paint different pictures of what happened as the story was revised and massaged. USA Today describes Wolter as “disappointed” that the rock turned out to be fake but unembarrassed by his interest in it when describing his reaction in 2001. None of the 2001 reports explain what aspects caused Wolter to doubt the stone’s authenticity, but in a memo of November 5, 2001, at the time the confession was announced, Hanson stated that the geological analysis had indicated that pyrite was present, which due to its rapid oxidation indicated that the AVM stone was much more recently carved than the Kensington Rune Stone, which lacked such pyrite. However, by 2005, something changed. Speaking to Alice Kehoe, who was writing a book about the Kensington Rune Stone, Wolter now said he was “delighted” by the hoax. According to Kehoe, it was only through the revelation of the hoax that Wolter learned how quickly pyrite oxidized, allowing him to determine that the Kensington Rune Stone was significantly older than the AVM Rune Stone. The two accounts are seemingly in conflict, but if taken together suggest that the pyrite oxidation wasn’t considered solid evidence of age until after the team learned that the inscription was a hoax—another reason why they were taken in by it in the first place.

The long and short of it seems to be that any time Wolter says he can determine relative age within minutes by looking at a rock, such analysis cannot be trusted.

Is there any evidence that Wolter has ever tested his "scientific" dating techniques by blind dating inscriptions of known provenance, or by teaching his techniques to other people and blind testing to see if they come up with the same results he does?

Reply

mmmm

1/6/2015 07:11:16 am

he uses Revolutionary War tombstones
as a rule of thumb when in the much more
settled areas of the country. he tries to look
at local rocks with inscriptions when going
further West. he tries for loose estimates.

Reply

Scott Hamilton

1/6/2015 07:19:53 am

That doesn't answer my question. If that's his entire technique (and man, that would be lame if it were), a far more scientific approach would be to have multiple trained people look at the same inscriptions and, without any knowledge of each other's work or the context of those inscriptions, see if they come up with anything like the same results. If they do, and those results don't contradict other evidence, then great. If they come up with different results, then we'd know for sure that Wolter's techniques aren't scientific but we in the biz call "guessing."

Steve StC

1/6/2015 12:58:18 pm

Jason-and-his-keyboard (actually, the Wayback Machine) led Jason to the Runestone Museum’s announcement about the AVM Special Committee, whose members included Wolter, Johnson and Westin, as well as Richard Nielsen:”

Must have been a busy week back then Jason. Normally your keyboard leads you to lots of negative opinions to cherry pick in order to slam SW.

I know Jason’s acolytes don’t have the energy to research Jason-and-his-keyboard’s real views, so herewith I supply you a few choice examples -
“Frankly, their interpersonal disputes are none of my business”

Yet, when they are convenient gasoline to fuel your SW fire, bring it on!

In response to being pressed by non-acolytes in his blog’s comments section, Jason says the following, “The reason I can't share the information isn't that it's nefarious but because it involves an ongoing dispute the two are having that I promised I wouldn't discuss in public since it isn't my business.”

This one is a doozie - http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-america-unearthed-s01e11-tracking-the-templars
“Full disclosure: Nielsen sent me links to material on his websites.” Sure Jason, you mean you “can’t discuss it in public” unless it supports your slam of SW du jour.

Reply

EP

1/6/2015 02:29:35 pm

Steve, you're so desperate to find a reason to disparage Jason and the rest of us that you've failed to distinguish between things revealed to Jason in private correspondence and public statements deliberately made available on the net.

Of course, your own google footprint makes it clear that you are probably incapable of appreciating that distinction yourself. Well, either that or you lack all sense of dignity.

tm

1/6/2015 03:03:27 pm

Hard for St. Cl to have much of a footprint when he hasn't posted to one of his own blogs since 2013 and to the other since last June. He has to come here so someone will read his drivel.

SteveStC

1/6/2015 03:29:42 pm

Ouch you got me TM (or whoever the hell you are). I haven’t posted on one of my blogs since 2013. That’s because it’s not a hate blog like Jason’s. When you’re running a hate blog to attack your hated football player SW, you post continuously on any little scrap you find. Admit it TM (or whoever the hell you are), this post by Jason doesn’t really move the ball down the field, does it? (Sorry for yet another football reference, Jason. I know how you hate football players.)

Paul Lett

1/6/2015 03:44:08 pm

why do you want to know who he or she is? Does that advance your ball down your field?

Only Me

1/6/2015 03:46:12 pm

Since Steve doesn't have the energy to do research, I did it for him.

[My father was a firefighter, my friends in high school and college were football players, and I remain friends with professional athletes.]
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/thomas-sheridan-extreme-skeptics-are-mentally-ill-have-shut-off-50-of-brain

Please continue, Steve. Your tears are delicious.

SteveStC

1/6/2015 03:50:14 pm

Fascinating, Only Me (or whoever the hell you are), did you have to do research to figure out that your father was a firefighter? Did you have to do research to figure out that your friends in high school and college were football players? Precisely what in the hell are you talking about?

If not, aren't you really just wasting time "whining and complaining?"

Paul Lett

1/6/2015 04:07:07 pm

I'm still trying to figure out why everyone's identity is a priority. I'm guessing his name is Steve? I don't know. But the main point is I don't care because it's irrelevant because it's the content of the post that im interested in. I wouldn't care if they all said anonymous. I come here to read an opposing viewpoint to Wolter. Why must I be flamed for doing my due diligence and researching a topic to the best of my ability?

Harry

1/6/2015 04:38:12 pm

Steve,

Let me point out a couple of facts that I think effectively rebut the points you attempted to make in your first post in the chain.

First, Nielsen is a linguist. The smoking guns that Hanson cited as giving it away as an obvious hoax are (1) that it was found in an area that was underwater in 1363 and (2) the pyrite weathering pattern. Neither of these have anything to do with linguistics and are therefore not something that one would expect Nielsen to realize.

Secondly, I have read all of the links that you provided at the end of your screed about Jason's mentions of Nielsen, and in none of them does Jason mention any personal dispute between Nielsen and Wolter, so none of them are inconsistent with his statement that such a dispute is none of his business.

Nor do I understand why Jason shouldn't be on friendly terms with someone simply because that person is no longer on friendly terms with Scott Wolter. I have had a number of cordial exchanges with Wolter himself on his blog, beginning not long after he started it, even though I have expressed disagreement with some of his ideas in some of those exchanges. Jason, I notice, states that he does not always agree with Nielsen either.

Finally, just so you know, Harry is really my name and it is, therefore, who the hell I am.

EP

1/6/2015 04:58:00 pm

Paul, Steve St. Clair here thinks he has shiny magical Jesus blood, and gets really upset when people challenge anything that supports the notion.

So yeah, you could say he's concerned about identity...

Matt Mc

1/7/2015 01:03:48 am

Let us not forget that Steve also has his family members following around the web to argue with him. It seems that they do not think that Steve is of the Sinclair bloodline and have several times in the past hijacked threads on this blog with their nasty little family fight.

For me it shows a pattern of Steves behavior, he is just a angry man and picks fights with who ever will fight with him.

sad really.

Jason D.

1/7/2015 06:14:03 am

Steve St Clare everyone, holder of the Sacred Chalice of Rixx, heir to the holy rings of Betazed. Oh... sorry, I sometimes get my fictional bloodlines centered around an old cup confused.

SteveStC

1/6/2015 06:34:19 pm

Actually Emergency Poop (EP), I know you thinks it’s all about you, but I think the most insulting thing I said [sic] (wrote) was “And now you see how easy it is to be a xenonarchaeologist, everyone. You just aim your keyboard at a subject and let Google do all the work.” IMHO

Reply

Mark L

1/6/2015 07:49:11 pm

What Steve-and-his-Jesus-bloodline fail to understand is...ah, I got nothing. I just wanted to write that.

Mark L (my real first name, and the real first letter of my surname)

EP

1/7/2015 03:12:35 am

Fun Fact: "Mr. T" is Mr. T's legal name.

Tim/1

1/7/2015 04:05:40 am

@stevestc (or whoever your supposed to be)

The Google analogy seems odd. Google would just shorten the research time but not affect the outcome. I suppose there was a telegraph operator somewhere who wasn't happy with the phone either,"oh yeah, all you need to do now is just pick up the phone and call someone rather than come down to the telegraph office and send a message". Or librarian who didn't like the Dewey decimal system, "now anybody can come in here and find anything, ".

If I were to look up all the information the old way would I not have the same conclusion ? If I wanted to go to a neighbors house is the end result different if I drive as opposed to walking?

Also if you had my SS# and full identity would it change the content of my post?

EP

1/6/2015 07:32:15 am

"If they come up with different results, then we'd know for sure that Wolter's techniques aren't scientific but we in the biz call "guessing.""

Either that or he's just really incompetent at applying them. After all, to the extent that Wolter's "techniques" aren't just play-acting science, it's not like he's the one who developed them. Do you really believe that Scott Wolter wouldn't have attempted to cash in on (or at least trumpeted) any scientific innovation due to Scott Wolter?

By the way, do you remember John DeSalvo (who appeared on the Lincoln episode of AU)? Well, John DeSalvo once gave a crystal skull to Scott Wolter to test and Wolter examined it with a "digital computerized microscope system", which is"state-of the-art and very advanced technology and "superior in certain ways to the scanning electron microscope". Wolter failed to find modern tool marks on the skull (big surprise there!) and "personally felt it was ancient and a very rare archaeological artifact". Read all about it in DeSalvo's 2012 book:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=J55zAwAAQBAJ

Reply

FrankenNewYork

1/6/2015 01:19:23 pm

Comparing tombstone inscriptions (vertical and exposed 24/7) with carvings on stones that were, buried, horizontal, made of different material than the markers or all of the above is hard to accept in my book. How do you compensate for the difference in conditions and materials? Doesn't seem too straightforward to me. But what do I know?

Reply

John McNair

1/6/2015 04:33:06 pm

One of the things that's troubling for me is that I live close to the University of Tennessee. Therefore I have followed Dr. Bill Bass for many years with the body farm. He has run the body farm for over 15 or 20 years and has written several hundred research papers on human body decomposition. Local news has interviewed him dozens of times and ran many shows on the body farm. And he has bodies in all conceivable means, buried, out in the open, in a plastic bag in a car trunk, etc. Being exposed to him and his research troubles me because I see a person in SW who is doing the same with rocks yet I don't see several hundred papers from him. I understand that Dr Bass didn't just all of a sudden have all those research papers and at one time had none, but SW has been doing this for awhile and I can't find the papers. Dr Bass has books too, but I'm talking about papers. Where he goes into detail on his research and techniques and findings.

If I'm wrong please link me to his papers so I can read them.

John Dunham

1/6/2015 07:52:45 am

In the research business we call the type of analysis that Mr. Wolter does "Anally Generated Results"

Reply

B L

1/6/2015 08:06:07 am

I've often wondered how much "real" work was done by Scott when he dated the KRS. I remain unconvinced that he did anything more than reproduce Winchell's work from 100 years ago. Granted, it's just a hunch I have. But, it might explain why he's not willing to make his technique available for peer review and why he talks in circles every time someone questions an aspect of his process. Wouldn't it be a grand fraud if the great breakthrough that he has been able to spin a career out of is nothing more than half-understood plagarism?

Reply

EP

1/6/2015 08:09:32 am

It's because his "process" was amateurish and incompetent. His irresponsible handling caused the KRS to be damaged to the point where it's unlikely to be reliably datable in the future.

(Also, there are some rumors that Wolter may have illegitimately retained possession of an uncorrupted chunk of it, which he's willing neither to acknowledge nor to make accessible to other researchers.)

Reply

Joe S

1/6/2015 01:17:57 pm

So, I have a question. When was it discovered that KRS did not have pirite present, before or after SW "tested" it with his "method"?

SteveStC

1/6/2015 05:46:37 pm

Ooooooohhhh !! RUMORS !! Rumors !!! "rumors that Wolter may have illegitimately retained possession of an uncorrupted chunk of it"

Well, when Emergency Poop jumps in with scientific evidence like RUMORS, well, holy cow, game over !! Way to gain some yardage Emergency Poop (EP). (ugh, I've really got to stop with the football analogies on these blog comments. Jason hates football players.)

EP

1/6/2015 06:04:34 pm

Steve St. Clair hasn't been taking his meds lately. Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

mmmm

1/6/2015 08:18:15 am

he also claims to utilize local rocks and stones for a
comparison point. he grew up in the Midwest. can he
be accurate about the West or East coasts if he is much
more familiar with his own local state's weather patterns?
if assuming the KRS is not hoaxed after 1850, it would
show age, and it did, and also an uneven weathering
pattern, hinting at a section below ground and a section
above ground. was S.W astute enough to peg its century
correctly if we rule out the Twentieth and also heartily the
Nineteenth? If it is older, his episode about the DU LUTH
stone with the 1679 date suggested that the French were
all over that area after 1615. Pushing the KRS before the
year 1400 asks for very precise dating techniques almost
equal to Carbon 14 in terms of weathering. this is the big Q!

Reply

B L

1/6/2015 08:28:16 am

I read once where he used 200 year old tombstones to compare weathering patterns on the KRS. This seemed strange to me, as it was not uncommon to place a tombstone on a grave or change one out decades after the time of death. Odd scientific choice to pick a control not knowing the exact history of the material.

mmmm

1/6/2015 08:32:48 am

he tries to find similar materials and a known
object that hopefully was in one spot and is not
a hoax. more weathering then implies more age.
the examples he sure about are at the heart of
his system. nothing is in isolation, all must tally.

John Dunham

1/6/2015 08:42:01 am

While there is a simple logic in the idea that an older carving would be more worn than a newer one.

SW's system is nonsensical - there are likely hundreds of factors that will determine how two stones will "age" I can think of forest canopy (which is always changing, north or south facing slope, even differential weather patterns over different periods which would make aging uneven. How is he controlling for these?

mmmm

1/6/2015 08:42:21 am

prior to the year 1800 as a rough rule of thumb, there
are more carved tombstones in New England than there
were all over the Midwest. he has only a few examples
that he can use that are local that predate our own nation
coming into being. assuming the date is correct on the KRS,
he is forced to look at "younger" examples of carved stone
or even uncarved stones with their degrees of weathering.
even if his technique is superlatively apt, his "controls" are
each worth a Ph.D thesis paper in & of themselves, indeed!

B L

1/6/2015 08:44:04 am

mmmmm: There are many things Scott didn't take into account when dating the KRS. The KRS was found in 1898. Between 1898 and 2001 (when Wolter first laid eyes on it) the KRS had been handled by an uncounted number of people. Ohman himself gouged the runes with a nail. It had been transported thousands of miles. It had been washed and prepped for display in several museums. If you believe the legends it spent time as a doorstep in Ohman's barn. on top of all of this, Scott didn't really know the provenance of the tombstones he tested. Any or all of these factors and many more could contribute to how old the KRS appears to be. Heck, one good undocumented acid wash could account for what Wolter believes is 500 years of aging.

mmmm

1/6/2015 08:51:46 am

Good point!!! Did the students give their stone an acid bath,
i wonder! there are techniques the art world knows by heart!

John Dunham

1/6/2015 08:55:24 am

even taking into account that the stone is pristine, looking at chisel marks is probably not the best way to date something. It would be better to date the pollen and other organic compounds found in conjunction with the stone.

Of course with the Kensington stone which was found prior to carbon dating that would not work, but even if we had to use a Wolterian technique, what he does (at least on AU) is beyond simplistic. As I said, an analysis would have to account for dozens of different variables.

Rick

1/6/2015 03:59:29 pm

I found EP's urban dictionary reference but wasn't able to find yours. What number is it? How far down do I need to scroll to find it?

Rick

1/6/2015 04:11:27 pm

Oops! That was for the next thread down. Doesn't matter anyway.

Steve StC

1/6/2015 01:10:22 pm

Reeeeaasssllly B L ???

Have you read the book "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence" ???

Of course you haven't. But on Jason's hate blog, reading something before you jump into the pile-on is not necessary. You are most welcome here BL, or should I say BS. You are among friends. In fact, many of Jason's anonymous "friends" use 2 initials like yourself. Take Emergency Poop (EP) for instance.

Reply

Rick

1/6/2015 02:18:44 pm

I missed the place above where BL said he didn't read the book.

EP

1/6/2015 02:26:55 pm

Man, looks like Steve just pulled a St. Clair... Wait, no, that's not what a "St. Clair" is:

"For a male to perform oral sex on another male at a unrinal in an open area of a bathroom for everyone to see."

Steve StC

1/6/2015 03:11:13 pm

Emergency Poop (EP), as usual your comments move the ball down the field (in the wrong direction) - (sorry Jason, another football reference, I know how you hate football players),

So to get an answer from B L without the distraction of the acolytes (slurp) .....

B L, have you read the book "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence" ???

Steve StC

1/6/2015 03:17:41 pm

BTW, Emergency Poop (EP) - (a reference from Urban Dictionary, which EP is fond of quoting) needs to remember that the name "Jason" is also on Urban Dictionary - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jason&defid=4766106
Here is how EP's favorite dictionary describes a boy named Jason, "Someone who often tends to over-analyze everything, while still being partially lazy in most efforts. Easily distracted unless upset and very sensitive to others' feelings. Often just tall enough to be a pain, but can never be called short. Likes to demean women jokingly however never actually means it."

Paul

1/6/2015 03:35:57 pm

Steve, did Wolter reach out to you in the last few days to defend him here?

SteveStC

1/6/2015 03:43:48 pm

Paul (or whoever the hell you are), no.
SW has made it clear to me that he thinks none of you are worth the time. I just enjoy shooting fish in a bucket.

Paul

1/6/2015 04:13:28 pm

"SW has made it clear to me that he thinks none of you are worth the time."

Interesting mentality he has certain all his theories are 100% correct and wont read other peoples thoughts. I mean we are so stupid as he has a degree, well so do I. So no one on this blog is capable of providing helpful, knowledgable wisdoms, or insightful comments. BTW the title of the article is The Strange Case of the AVM Rune Stone Hoax

tm

1/6/2015 04:14:45 pm

Oh! Steve! Now I know who you are! You're the guy who was standing around drooling over the results from the "long range locator"! Must be kind of hard to shoot fish in a barrel when you're firing blanks.

Do you have anything to say that adds yardage to the discussion? Dammit, sorry Jason, another football reference.

As to Paul (of the degree), “Interesting mentality he has certain all his theories are 100% correct “

Ss you have mind reading abilities. Well then, you are certainly among friends. Jason and his acolytes have a long history of mind reading. Did you get your degree in mind reading?

Paul, was your degree in anything to do with the topic of this hate blog or SW’s research? I'm gonna take a wild guess no.

EP

1/6/2015 05:18:31 pm

"SW has made it clear to me that he thinks none of you are worth the time."

Which is exactly why a huge chunk of discussion on Scott Wolter's blog concerns Jason and his blog.

"I just enjoy shooting fish in a bucket."

I think you meant "shooting myself in the foot" but your fingers slipped.

tm

1/6/2015 06:03:33 pm

Okay, Steve. Let's move the conversation down the field. While you were standing around that day, Scott Wolter was actually directing drilling operations based on results from a long range locator. Long. Range. Locator. Don't like those three words, how about three more. Sandia National Laboratories. And three more: double blind studies. On national TV, Scott Wolter advocated the use of a "machine" that was proven to be fraudulent more than 15 years ago. That's not hate, Steve. That's science. You were there! So please tell me, why in God's name would anybody want to read anything written by someone like that? Why should anyone take his "science" seriously?

EP

1/6/2015 06:10:50 pm

"You're the guy who was standing around drooling over the results from the "long range locator"!"

AHAHAHAHAHA!!! What a loser LOL!

Kal

1/6/2015 08:12:22 am

You found the 1985 one too! Yay. They faked that one in modern times, aye.

SW doesn't do science. He does speculation. Actually using proper tools would prove he is not doing science.

I bet one of you could convince him you had a real artifact after carving up a soapstone rock with fake runes. He'd be flatly convinced. For once you would have pulled one over...on him.

Reply

Dan

1/6/2015 08:27:37 am

Actually it was me, "Dan" who pointed to the USA Today article, not "Dave".

My apologies. My typing is terrible. I've fixed it so I can give you proper credit. Thanks!

Reply

Clete

1/6/2015 09:31:19 am

Ah, Scott Wolter and his "scientific analysis". I look at a rock. I pound it with a hammer. I look at it through a glass. I take all of thirty-six seconds to do this. I then look steely eyed and pronounce that it is old, probably a land claim by Viking or Knights Templars. I then complain when no one takes my finding seriously, because I are a "forensic geologist".

I haven't read it.
Educate us Steve. How does it reconcile the use of the word opþagelsefardþ ?

SteveStC

1/6/2015 04:24:30 pm

Well, Dan (or whoever you are), I recommend reading the material written by those you are piling onto. But here, among like-minded acolytes, it’s not necessary. Just jump right in. The comments on Jason’s hate blog used to be populated by people like Crabby who at least were angry, failed academics. Now it’s just a bunch of anonymous acolytes. I never thought I’d miss Crabby. At least he was a somewhat worthy opponent. This bunch is actually pathetic.

Dan

1/6/2015 04:35:52 pm

So you don't know.

Only Me

1/6/2015 04:44:25 pm

"At least he was a somewhat worthy opponent."

Too bad Christopher never held you in the same regard. That's pretty much the consensus opinion of you, too.

That's what I'm trying to find. I'm trying to find SW's research. I found his books and I'm reading them, but I can't find anything other than the report on the KRS. Can you direct me to where I can find those? I am greatly interested in reading them. I'm very interested in his technique and any other research he's done on controlled pieces of known origin. Also for the various materials, like marble compared to granite.

Thanks.

John McNair

SteveStc

1/6/2015 04:52:34 pm

Well, Dan (or whoever you are), I read the book in 2008, when Scott was part of our Atlantic Conference - AtlanticConference.org - and I have scrolled through it a few times since. I don’t recall the word you found in 30 seconds of Google work with your keyboard - "opþagelsefardþ." So I went to the index of the book - "The Kensington Rune Stone, Compelling New Evidence."

I don’t see that word in the index of the book. Often books miss complex works like this one.

The books is 519 pages long and I’m not going back through it for you, on this hate blog, looking for a particular phrase.

Perhaps you could be less of a tool and actually read up on the work of those you are attempting to destroy. Or, alternatively, you could pile on like the other mindless acolytes here.

Keep in mind, that address requires replacing the (@) with just the @ sign and replacing the (dot) with just a period.

Scott will likely get back to you unless he's out making more shows that Jason will have to suffer through and them come onto his hate blog to let his acolytes know how much he hated it.

Dan

1/6/2015 05:00:44 pm

Of course the fringe book doesn't reconcile the use of opþagelsefardþ. Its a word that doesn't have any provenance in the middle ages and comes right out of an 1880's book about Vinland. Essentially, its the smoking gun that dates the "rune stone" to the late 19th century.

Its a scam, just like all of your fake ancestry.

SteveStCC

1/6/2015 05:05:57 pm

Only Me (or whoever you are)

Shooting fish in a bucket -

“The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.”

See - merriam-webster.com

Admit it, Ooooonly Meeee, you enjoyed using the word “delicious” in your hate-comment above. Drag out the vowels, “Deeeeliiiciiiiooouuuus” Mmm. It gave you chills, didn’t it.

SteveStC

1/6/2015 05:10:58 pm

Dan (or whatever your real name is), You are free to call my ancestry fake, but you do so at your own peril. You see, I use something known as footnotes. So if you care to wade into my research honestly, which of course you will not do, you will find that you are not on a comfortable perch (to quote my former friend Crabby).

EP

1/6/2015 05:13:10 pm

Oh, noes! Not FOOTNOTES!!!

Paul McNair

1/6/2015 05:53:51 pm

Steve,

I've tried his blog but when I try to post with Google account or anything else I've tried it takes my post then it never shows up. Thanks for the email, I'll try to contact him there.

John

Only Me

1/6/2015 05:55:04 pm

Sorry, Your Disgrace, I didn't mean to *harden* your resolve.

B L

1/7/2015 02:56:14 am

Wow....a lot of activity here since I last checked in yesterday....

To answer Steve's question....

Yes, I have read "Compelling New Evidence". I've read all of Wolter's books. I find them so hilarious. I bought them and refer to them often. A question for another time....does Scott even remember what he wrote in some of his books? He often seems to contradict his own published assertions during his appearances on radio, TV, and on some of his blog entries. But, I digress......

Frankly, I didn't find "Compelling New Evidence" all that compelling. Scott's weathering/dating studies on the KRS are flawed. There is NO record of how the stone has been handled, who it has been handled by, or what processes it has been exposed to from 1898 up until 2001 when Wolter first studied it. How can one judge the age of a rock without knowing exactly what chemicals, cleaning processes, mechanical contact that stone has been exposed to for the last 100 years? It can't be done, and no amount of personal attacks or name calling can change that, Steve St. Jesus.

Jason D.

1/7/2015 06:52:13 am

Steve;

I've watched every episode of America Unearthed. I came here because I was puzzled by a lot of Wolter's claims and I found other people were as well. Jason C. does an excellent job at deconstructing the poor science and research behind these claims.

I don't understand why the show can't stand on its own merits and why I should suddenly have to read a book to supposedly clarify it.

Or is your prattling on meant to imply that America Unearthed is less than scholarly and I have to turn to Wolter's books for 'hard' evidence.

EP

1/6/2015 05:03:17 pm

By the way, for those of you who would like to put a name to the face:

https://plus.google.com/+SteveStClair/posts

(After all, a St. Clair is all about putting yourself out there for all to see!)

Reply

SteveStC

1/6/2015 05:08:08 pm

Very good EP.
You can use your keyboard too.

Let's see yours.

Reply

EP

1/6/2015 05:09:35 pm

I wouldn't expose myself to a St. Clair, that's public indecency.

Ed

1/7/2015 09:11:22 am

I can't believe in your complete arrogance you would assume he was using a keyboard! He could have been using Dragon Naturally Speaking. And then to bring that unresearched assumption and spout it out as fact! You should be ashamed.

Steve St. Clair: “I started doing genealogy in 2001 right after the 9/11 attacks. I guess everyone reacted to that in different ways and this was just mine."

SteveStC

1/6/2015 05:18:57 pm

And now you see how easy it is to be a xenonarchaeologist, everyone. You just aim your keyboard at a subject and let Google do all the work.

Do you have anything more to say about my latest research, EP (or whoever the hell you are)?

Thanks for driving more traffic to that link. Stay tuned for much more from me on my research in the UK. By the way, I got on a plane to go there. I didn’t depend on my keyboard like you xenonarchaeologists do.

EP

1/6/2015 05:21:12 pm

Tell us more about how 9/11 made you research your Jesus blood. I'm sure it's a eye-watering, but ultimately life-affirming tale.

SteveStC

1/6/2015 05:24:43 pm

Well thanks so much for the opportunity to promote my DNA study, Emergency Poop (EP),

Most of it is on my website -
StClairResearch (dot) com

SteveStC

1/6/2015 06:32:53 pm

Actually Emergency Poop (EP), I know you thinks it’s all about you, but I think the most insulting thing I said [sic] (wrote) was “And now you see how easy it is to be a xenonarchaeologist, everyone. You just aim your keyboard at a subject and let Google do all the work.” IMHO

Reply

TR1221

1/7/2015 08:27:50 am

You mean there really is such a thing as a forensic geologist.

EP

1/6/2015 06:16:01 pm

In this thread: Steve St. Clair courageously thows his own pasty butt onto yet another grenade meant for Scott Wolter. Also, Steve St. Clair still can't think of anything more insulting than poop.

Reply

Only Me

1/6/2015 07:24:02 pm

Don't worry about it. Steve once called this blog a "fetish site"...AFTER he obsessed, for weeks, over Tara Jordan using fecal sandwich in a prior comment.

Reply

EP

1/6/2015 07:30:39 pm

Why would I worry about something so amusing?! :)

Only Me

1/7/2015 03:32:53 am

Agreed. It's almost as amusing as his failed attempt at "Gotcha!" in a reply to one of my comments. I mean, he went to all the trouble of searching merriam-webster.com for the phrase "consensus of opinion", when my EXACT words (this is important, because it's a sticking point with Steve) were "consensus opinion".

Watching his "flail and fail" tactic is entertaining, indeed.

Jason D.

1/7/2015 06:56:12 am

"Also, Steve St. Clair still can't think of anything more insulting than poop."

Or the scathing insult that some of us use a keyboard and might actually use that keyboard to do that nasty bit of business called research. Instead, we should go look at rocks and make guesses on the age and origin like a real man.

Reply

Stevestc

1/6/2015 06:35:35 pm

Actually Emergency Poop (EP), I know you thinks it’s all about you, but I think the most insulting thing I said [sic] (wrote) was “And now you see how easy it is to be a xenonarchaeologist, everyone. You just aim your keyboard at a subject and let Google do all the work.” IMHO

Reply

Only Me

1/6/2015 06:45:31 pm

"xenonarchaeologist"

Is that someone who studies ancient lighting and general anesthetics?

Reply

EP

1/6/2015 07:07:29 pm

Man, Steve St. Clair must be *really* angry. I mean, why else would he multi-post the same ungrammatical message, wherein he quotes a different post of his?...

Marius

1/7/2015 07:02:19 am

Do you know how keyboards work?

Reply

Billy St Clair

1/6/2015 07:57:28 pm

I just wanted to apologise for the behaviour of my brother.

Reply

Will

1/6/2015 11:41:34 pm

Jason,

I'd be in hearing your breakdown of Carl Munck, since there are crackpots out there who think he's untouchable. I assume it's a "security-by-obscurity" situation, I just lack the math to break it down myself but am interested to see someone who is more knowledgeable to break it down since it seems a tad different than the typical numerology magic tricks.

Reply

EP

1/7/2015 03:37:06 am

This should help:

Showers, D.E. (2009). "The mathematics of Carl Munck." New York State Mathematics Teachers' Journal. 59 (3)106-128

Reply

Will

1/7/2015 04:43:22 am

Thanks EP, I'm looking forward to reading this.

(Me and my early morning typos... ouch.)

B L

1/7/2015 03:01:57 am

Anyone else find it ironic that the language Steve St Clair uses here on Jason's blog in defense of his friend would get him banned over on Scott Wolter's blog? So much for taking the high road. I expected more from the direct descendant of my Lord and savior.

Reply

EP

1/7/2015 03:17:59 am

"B L"? More like... erm... "Butt Licker"!

Whoa, being Steve is so easy! I wonder if I have Jesus blood as well.

Reply

B L

1/7/2015 03:54:07 am

Ha!! Now that was was miraculous! :)

EP

1/7/2015 05:03:19 am

I turn Steve's tears into wine! :D

Stephen

1/7/2015 08:35:40 am

You do better than him, then, he can only turn them into whine

Stephen Saint Clair

1/7/2015 04:10:14 am

So Jason Colavito (OR SHOULD I CALL YOU JASON COCK-LICK-VETO BECAUSE YOU CANT GET LAID HAHAHA) you've said something in this blog post that mentions someone who you have mentioned before! GOTCHA!

Now I'm sure your army of keyboard acolytes who have the gall to use pseudonyms (obviously they aren't as proud of their America-owning, Magdalene-humping heritage as me) will have a PROBLEM with the truth bomb I just dropped, but there's nothing they can do to stop me! My defensive line of idiocy and name-calling is just too solid.
UH oh that was a football metaphor and you nerds hate sports! HAHAHA!

Reply

Only Me

1/7/2015 04:13:19 am

That was actually a pretty good impression.

Reply

Stephan St Clare

1/7/2015 04:47:59 am

I'm throwing the red challenge flag on that. I'm the real Sstc I haven't posted much today because im doing research on my new piece on Ron Jeremy.

Aye, I miss the days Steve could still form a coherent sentence. It made the whole production a little more enjoyable.

Reply

Kal

1/7/2015 10:34:20 am

You've been feeding the trolls again everyone. This is an opinion board, not really a hate board. It takes someone of sheer low self worth to spend two or more days harassing this blog just because he doesn't like the methods used in coming up with an opinion and doing some research. But we cannot expect maturity or even rationality from some bloggers, as they have apparently gone off their meds and could be danger to themselves and others. We can assume, and I don't speak for all, and not for SW or JC, or any of them, that this STC poster has the mental rationality of a 12 year old, or might in fact be 12. This is not his fault surely, but he seems to get a rise out of all of you. He also likely gets a rise out of SW being onto something, which is fine. It's his opinion. It is not fine however to libel JC on his own blog an accuse him of things he didn't do, because one simply have a different opinion. This person STC should devote his ire to his own blog and rant about how he truly admires to the point of obsession the awesome glowing SW, his evident man crush. Trying to find out our identities would be stalking. He's not trying to act like a creepy uncle on the net making selffies on his facebook of little dogs in football attire. He is also not a memer of any legit organization, scientific or otherwise. (I'm not either, so don't even try to stalk me). I just come here to amuse myself ranting about rants on History.

So let's keep it civil and talk about the shows we love to hate, not acting like creepers.

Reply

Kal

1/7/2015 05:23:20 pm

That google plus account explains a whole lot about the guy posting as StC. Man crush on SW yes. Little kid no. Sadly obsesses with being right all the time, yes. Location explains it all too well. Still why come here and be a troll? This site it not defaming SW, the posters might be. "Thow doth protest too much. Out damned spot. MacBeth." Man crush. But in 2014 a man crush isn't that shocking.

Oh and you urban dictionary quotations are funny, evne if you know anyone can add to the UD.

Now the trolls will be very hard to get to leave.

Reply

Joe Scales

1/8/2015 03:16:28 am

Steve... if you would really like to shoot fish in a bucket... or even a barrel... you should take a remedial logic class and then give Mr. Wolter's work a second look to see the multitude of fallacies contained in his reasoning. Even recently in his Great Wall of China blog he admitted the use of argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) as his back-up reasoning of choice when confronted with contrary discourse. Because of his admitted reliance upon such faulty reasoning, the classification of which predates any rune stone he might stumble upon, any conclusions reached by him through such reasoning are necessarily suspect. As for buying his self-published book and reading same... if he's not going to submit his arguments for proper peer review (which he believes is some sort of vast conspiracy), why bother to be misled by him? Besides, asserting the validity of the Kensington Rune Stone would be like finding a hip-hop opera by Mozart and believing that to be legit as well...

Reply

Kal

1/8/2015 07:16:19 am

I am thinking upon review of this that there are at least two StC's, and that the blogger account is the real Steve. This means the troll is pretending to be that Steve to get attention, and using an old blog nobody has updated since 2013 to do it. He figures nobody will check in with the real one, and is using his name. If both IPs go to the same source it likely it the same guy, and all the more a waste of time feeding into his bizarre rants here.

I lost track of who knew what and why, when or how on the blessed stone. It's a plus, having the internet available to we non-professionals who become smitten with some obscure piece of academic contention and have an hour to kill. You expect some genuine stuffing somewhere- digging through well constructed snark is just the price we pay.

This page should probably be deleted, just opinion from a browser. No stuffing anywhere but much food for thought, good grief. If this is academia....? * sigh * The least someone could do is provide a few clear sentences. And pleasant ones.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.